Final Arguments in Playboy Sex Bias Trial

LOS ANGELES (CN) – Opposing lawyers launched their closing arguments Tuesday in a sex harassment case against Playboy Entertainment Group with the attorney for a former broadcast operator depicting her co-worker as a man constantly casting vicious slurs while management looked aside, followed by Playboy’s lawyer who characterized the co-worker’s comments as “lighthearted joking.”

Plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Joseph Valencia argued that his client Julie Crouch was a victim of sexual harassment and disabilities discrimination from both her co-worker Charles Dorn and her supervisor Chere Johnson. “Going to Human Resources is a serious issue,” Valencia said. “Julie Crouch had been severely damaged.” Valencia said that defendants’ theory that Crouch and Dorn were friends does not make sense. All the defendants’ witnesses, Valencia said, work under Johnson and tried to minimize Dorn’s harassments by saying that Julie was also laughing along with everyone about it. Valencia also said that Dorn as a superiority complex toward women and intentionally targeted Crouch by calling her “whore,” “slut” and “bitch.” Moreover, Valencia said that Playboy’s Director of Human Resources Brenda Villa’s conduct does not make sense. “She found inappropriate conduct, but not harassment conduct,” Valencia said. Valencia said that his client seeks economic damages for future medical expenses which totals to about $140,000 with two to three psychotherapy that costs about $300 an hour per session for three years to treat her post traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder. “Playboy has completely failed,” Valencia said. “Mr. Dorn has been exposed and must take responsibility for what he did. Chere Johnson is not an exception either.” In his answer, Playboy’s lawyer Jason Mills with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius argued that Crouch is remaking the truth. “She’s revising history,” Mills said. “She’s trying to change what happened.” Mills argued that Crouch did not say anything to Playboy’s Human Resources representative Yvonne Vega when the issue came up again or when her position in Playboy was eliminated. “She didn’t say anything,” Mills said. He also added that there’s no evidence that Dorn’s inappropriate comments were directed at Crouch. “No one can point out the specific instances of when these things happened.” Mills even said that Crouch’s witness and former supervisor Victor Mendoza “had no idea that those comments he heard was even directed at Julie … That’s just lighthearted joking around with your co-worker.”Moving to the issue of damages, he said, “There’s no damages here. “Ms. Crouch is trying to reverse history. Whatever romantic history she had with Chuck, she’s trying to change that. There was no harassment. Ms. Crouch is not entitled to anything in this lawsuit.” During the rebuttal, Valencia said Dorn’s continuous harassment and Johnson’s failure to stop and prevent the harassment took a tremendous toll on Crouch and her marriage. “She is not rewriting history,” he said. “There is still one chapter that needs to be written and that chapter is you.”